K100d or K10d viewfinder size MZ50?

[akcelik]

hi! sorry to ask a stupid question.

 

i don't have shop nearby to get a sense of how small the viewfinder is on the

K100d. it will be mail order so i need to make a decision based upon reviews.

 

i have the MZ50 with me to draw comparison, other than that i use the Canon G3.

 

i am on a budget and everything is factored in to the cost.

the kit lens will have to do but i hope its not worse than the lens on G3. i

would much rather prefer one 28mm f2.8 but any options outside the kit will add

to the cost substantially since i need to order from overseas.

 

K100d is cheaper but will need battery & charger.

K10d is more expensive but comes with charger and 500 shots a day will be all i

need. bigger better brighter viewfinder. but! looking at the dynamic range test

at dpreview reveals k100d to have an edge in DR.

 

the area i am unable to decide is if the K100d viewfinder is small, but how

small? is the MZ50 viewfinder considered big in DSLR terms?

 

thanks in advance!

[jan_bremnes]

Questions are never stupid. You're only stupid if your not asking questions.

My reply, on the other hand, might be stupid :p

 

I have no experience with the MZ50, but I've handled both the K10D and the K100D. The viewfinder in K10D is a huge step up from the one in K100D, not so much because of its size, but because of its brightness.

If you have looked through the viewfinder in a Canon 350D and/or Nikon D50, I would say the K100D is alot better than 350D and a little better than D50.

 

Compared to DSLR's with an APS-sensor (meaning all DSLRS excluding Canon EOS 1Ds/1Ds Mrk II and EOS 5D) the MZ-50 viewfinder would be considered big as far as I can tell.

 

Below (or above, dunno where it will be put) is an illustration I've made where I try to compare the sizes of the viewfinders. (MZ-50: 36*24mm, 92% coverage, 0,77x magnification. K10D: 23,5*15,7mm, 95% coverage, 0,95x magnification. K100D: 23,5*15,7mm, 96% coverage, 0,85x magnification).

[jan_bremnes]

Let's try that again

[chuck a]

Nice post Jan. I am in the same boat. I am unable to see these cameras in person and am considering a DS2 or a K100D. The K10D is too large for my tastes. The viewfinder comparison should be valid here as well. I want to be able to manual focus as easily as possible and will probably add the 1.2x viewfinder magnifier for some help.

 

The K100D adds the SR and better jpg processing to the mix. So the choice is really bigger buffer and larger vf or SR and better jpgs.

 

I owned a Canon XT for a while but it had some fatal flaws. Image quality was great. The vf was terrible (impossible to manual focus) and ergonomics were not well thought out. Also, I had a terrible time finding prime lenses that would AF accurately. Canon AF prime lenses are not very fun to manual focus with either. The primes are sloppy and feel cheap. Not like manual focusing the Pentax M and A line.

 

If I have missed something here, let me know.

[mountainvisions]

The K10D actually has higher dynamic range then other 10mp SLR.

 

You are reading the JPEG DR which is lower. If you shoot RAW the DR is the best in class.

 

Be careful what info you read and how the test were conducted.

 

The K10D viewfinder is nice. I think brighter then the ist D which had a nice VF.

 

I think it might be the best recent viewfinder pentax made.

[michael_kuhne]

My understanding is that dynamic range is intertwined with contrast setting. If the default contrast setting is very slightly on the high side, testing will show slightly less dynamic range. The tested difference in dpreview, as I recall, was very minor, like under 1/3 stop??

 

It is a trade off very similar to film. Low contrast film is very forgiving of overexposure without blowing out highlights. It has great dynamic range compared with medium-high or high contrast film. It is favored by portrait and wedding photographers to help soften lighting, and control highlights. The trade off is, if used for colorful scenic shots, the results may look a bit drab or flat.

 

Just as you can use different film types, depending on your need, with a DSLR you can tweek its settings to suit your desires. If the K10D contrast setting were matched perfectly with the contrast of a competitor's model, it would have a dynamic range at least as great.

 

The viewfinder of the K100D is rated good to very good. Pentax DSLR's have enjoyed a reputation for having better ones than other brand models in the same price range. The K10D and the former ist-D have professional style all glass pentaprism viewfinders with greater magnification.

 

My impression has been that 35mm film SLR bodies having the same type of viewfinder as in a DSLR, present a somewhat larger image to the eye, if using a lens that equals the angle of view.

[mountainvisions]

Good point mike.

 

You actually can retain some additional DR by downing the contrast and saturation in JPEG. selectively adjust in post precessing.

 

but like i said, in raw pentax DR is exceptional.

[akcelik]

Jan thank you so very much!

that viewfinder comparison is an excellent demonstration, just the type of information that was needed. i appreciate it very very much that you have taken the time to show and your kindness in response :D

 

Justin thanks for the pointer!

now i have a better dynamic range of understanding for what went over my head before. i went all the way back to dpreview to check how the test was made and it don't even say its in jpeg or raw.

but after a second look it shows without saying, the comparison is based on jpeg interpretation when it should really be in raw for the purpose of garnering a flat tone and not ACR Best that would probably be less useful in most situation.

 

Michael thank you.

reading technical reviews sometimes gets one in the habit of being overly concerned with details that hardly make a difference. but i feel (and my reason for being swayed to k10d) is for the better viewfinder experience that would i feel will make a difference compared to 1/3 of an EV.

thanks for the contrast tip! raw is king! if only we had control over color balance and selective color too, oh well.

 

i wish i can offer more than thanks! best wishes..

[richard_milsom]

I have compared the viewfinders of the C****n EOS 400D with the K100D and the K10D with the K100D in a shop. My subjective opinion was that the K100D was slightly better than the EOS 400D and that the K10D was distinctively better than the K10D. As a major reason for buying an SLR is the viewfinder this seems very important to me. I don't know the MZ50 but I avoided buying the MZ5 when it came out (and went over to the opposition) as I found the viewfinder information LEDs intruding into image area distracting, with both the K100d & K10d the information in below the viewing frame and not distracting. All I'm waiting for is the price of the K10D to fall from its present high level here in the UK to something more reasonable.

[charles_gravely]

Just got a K10D two weeks ago.

I can't give you a comparison but will add that the "eye relief" is really great.

I find I can have my eye a good distance away and still see through the viewfinder nicely. I find it very easy to shoot with both eyes open and track the action as it comes into the frame.

I was a little worried about the viewfinder experience coming from a full frame film camera ;)but I find I quite like it.

Just my two cents

Sincerely

Charles

[akcelik]

Richard. if the k100d is better than the competition, then the k10d should be very pleasant experience.. i just ordered mine waiting for the mail :)

 

Charles. i believe its more than eye relief. when one part of the body goes through pain the whole body joins in.

 

i just hope the camera already comes with a screen protector. i dread the experience of sticking one on. already got some quality clearscreens from Belkin but still.. went through a bad experience putting one on the g3 and damaged it a little.

 

i think i might have scored meself a SMC k28/3.5 for 60 bucks!